Search Mailing List Archives


Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[protege-owl] Upper ontologies

Thomas Russ tar at ISI.EDU
Mon Feb 2 10:52:21 PST 2009


On Feb 1, 2009, at 10:39 PM, Ina Bumshtein wrote:

> Hello ones more,
> If I correctly understand there is a good practice to connect your  
> domain ontology to upper or top general ontologies. Maybe you know  
> some good and commonly used ones?

Maybe.

It depends on why you want to connect to such an ontology.  Some good  
reasons:

  * Interoperability.  You want to have your system operate with other  
systems that use that upper ontology.

  * Modeling Choices.  You like the modeling choices that are made in  
those upper ontologies.  Remember that you get not only terminology,  
but a set of semantics.  So you need to like that form of organization.

  * Available tools.  There are some tools available to help you  
construct your domain ontology if you adopt a particular upper level  
ontology.


A bad reason:

  * Everybody else is doing it.  It only really makes sense if you get  
some benefit from the upper ontology.  In particular, you have to make  
sure you have the time to understand the ontologic commitments that  
have been made by the upper ontology, and then make sure that the way  
you want to frame your ontology is consistent with those commitments.


> In Protege you should import upper ontology and declare your top  
> classes as subclasses of class from upper ontology. Am I right?

Yes.




More information about the protege-owl mailing list